By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite a guilty plea last year, the Department of Justice is reportedly dropping criminal charges against Boeing in favor of a non-criminal settlement. This settlement will add $444.5 million to the crash victims’ fund, but families of the 346 victims killed in two 737 Max crashes are outraged, deeming it insufficient and a betrayal of justice. The decision stems from Boeing’s withdrawal of its guilty plea and subsequent assertion of a litigation risk, a claim disputed by victims’ attorneys. Families intend to challenge this decision in court.
Read the original article here
The Justice Department’s reported decision to drop the criminal case against Boeing in relation to the two 737 Max crashes, opting instead for a non-criminal settlement, is sparking outrage among the families of the victims. They describe the decision as “morally repugnant” and a mere “slap on the wrist,” a sentiment echoed by many.
This settlement involves an additional $444.5 million being added to a crash victims’ fund, a sum to be divided evenly among those affected. While this might seem like a significant amount, many feel the financial compensation pales in comparison to the loss of life and the profound suffering endured by the families. The sense of injustice is palpable, fueled by the perception that the punishment is far too lenient given the scale of the tragedy.
The sheer number of victims – 346 people perished in the two crashes in 2018 and 2019 – underscores the gravity of the situation. The families’ anger is compounded by the belief that the settlement feels less like justice and more like a corporate bailout, allowing Boeing to avoid the full consequences of their actions.
Concerns are being raised about the potential for future corporate malfeasance if such a substantial transgression results in such a seemingly minor penalty. The feeling is that a far harsher penalty would be needed to act as a sufficient deterrent against similar negligence in the future. The insufficient punishment would likely embolden other corporations to cut corners and prioritize profit over safety.
Many believe the settlement should include significantly greater financial penalties for Boeing, including measures that directly impact executive compensation. Suggestions range from substantial fines levied against individual executives to the cancellation of lucrative bonuses and contracts. The goal, in the minds of those affected, is to make the consequences painful enough to prevent future instances of such recklessness.
Speculation abounds regarding the motivations behind the Justice Department’s decision. Conspiracy theories are circulating, questioning the fairness and impartiality of the process, with some suggesting that conflicts of interest or external pressures may have influenced the outcome.
The outrage extends beyond the financial aspects of the settlement. The emotional toll on the victims’ families cannot be overstated. They feel disregarded and betrayed by a system that prioritizes corporate interests over the lives of their loved ones. This deeply felt sense of injustice fuels the widespread condemnation of the decision.
The feeling that justice has not been served is pervasive. The paltry sum offered to each victim, even considering the added funds to the existing victim’s fund, is seen by many as an insult. This inadequate compensation further underscores the perception that the lives lost were deemed less valuable than the financial well-being of a multinational corporation.
The lack of a criminal conviction sends a disturbing message. The belief that the corporation can evade true accountability only serves to intensify the feeling of moral repugnance. The families are left to grapple with their immeasurable loss while the corporation responsible is allowed to escape with what many see as a minor inconvenience.
Ultimately, the decision leaves a bitter taste in many mouths. The outrage extends far beyond the families directly impacted, highlighting a wider sense of disillusionment with the justice system and a growing concern that corporate interests frequently supersede the well-being of individuals. The situation highlights a deep-seated frustration with the imbalance of power in the face of corporate wrongdoing. For many, the settlement is not a closure but a stark reminder of a system perceived as failing to uphold justice.